Kenneth Burke's rhetorical theory offers a potent lens through which to understand how humans connect and persuade one another. At its core lies the concept of identification, a process through which individuals or groups are brought into consubstantiality—a shared substance or essence. This essay will argue that Burke's theory of identification provides a crucial framework for analyzing how rhetoric functions not merely as a means of persuasion, but as a fundamental mechanism for social bonding, the formation of collective identities, and the negotiation of power dynamics. By examining how speakers and audiences find common ground, Burke reveals the deeply social and relational nature of communication.
Burke posits that identification is the "very motive of rhetoric." In A Rhetoric of Motives, he explains that persuasion is achieved not by convincing someone of a logical argument alone, but by creating a sense of shared identity or interest. This is consubstantiality, a state where individuals perceive themselves as being "one with" another. It’s less about agreement on a specific point and more about a feeling of shared being. For instance, a political candidate might employ the rhetorical strategy of referring to themselves as "one of you," a parent, a worker, or a taxpayer. This language, while seemingly simple, aims to establish consubstantiality by highlighting shared experiences and values, thereby making the audience more receptive to the candidate's message. The effectiveness lies in tapping into pre-existing social affiliations and aspirations.
The process of identification, however, is rarely straightforward or complete. Burke acknowledges that individuals are necessarily divided, making perfect consubstantiality an ideal rather than a constant reality. Therefore, rhetoric often involves the dramatistic act of "driving toward identification." This often manifests through the use of symbols, which Burke considered central to human action and understanding. Language, rituals, shared ideologies, and even material possessions can act as symbolic vehicles for creating consubstantiality. Consider the shared experience of attending a sporting event. The team’s colors, the chants, the shared cheers, and the collective disappointment or elation all contribute to a powerful sense of identification among fans. This shared substance transcends individual differences, uniting strangers under a common banner.
Furthermore, identification is intrinsically linked to power and social control. When individuals identify with a particular group, ideology, or leader, they are more likely to accept its norms, values, and directives. This can be a force for social cohesion, enabling collective action and the maintenance of social order. However, it also carries the potential for manipulation. A charismatic leader can leverage the desire for identification to consolidate power, encouraging followers to adopt beliefs or take actions that may not be in their best interest. The propaganda disseminated during wartime, for example, often relies heavily on creating a strong "us versus them" dichotomy, fostering identification with the national cause while demonizing the enemy. This process simplifies complex geopolitical realities by emphasizing a singular, shared identity against a monolithic "other."
Ultimately, Burke's theory of identification moves beyond a transactional view of communication. It suggests that communication is a profound social act, deeply embedded in the human need for connection and belonging. By understanding how we are drawn into consubstantiality with others—through shared language, symbols, and experiences—we can better grasp the mechanisms of persuasion, the formation of communities, and the dynamics of social influence. Burke’s insights remain remarkably relevant, offering a sophisticated explanation for why we choose to align ourselves with certain groups, ideas, and individuals, and how these alignments shape our perceptions and actions in the world.